HKSAR v. MARIA MANINDER SINGH

DCCC 600/2025

[2026] HKDC 358

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 600 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 charges,

Charge 1 - Burglary, contrary to Section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Charge 2 - Theft, contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Amended Summary of Facts

2.  At about 10:48 a.m. on 13 September 2024, Ms. LAM Tsz-na (“LAM”)  left her residence after checking that all properties therein were intact. When she returned at about 6:30 p.m. on the same day, she found signs of ransacking in the Flat, the glass window in the bedroom was damaged, a piece of rock and some broken glass fragments were found on her bed. Her jewellery box containing 5 pair of earrings, 2 necklaces, 3 pendants, 3 handbags and her identity card, driving license, 2 passports, 2 credit cards and one Construction Industry Safety Training Certificate went missing, the total value of the stolen jewellery and handbags was HK$116,000. The case was reported and upon police investigation, bloodstains found at various locations inside and outside LAM’s flat were confirmed to have come from the Defendant.

3.  At about 9 p.m. on 5 October 2024, Mr. WONG Chi-him (“WONG”)  parked his private vehicle outside Hutchison Park, Hung Hom Road.  WONG ensued that he locked all the windows of his vehicle before he left the said location. When WONG returned to his vehicle some 4 hours later at about 1:20 a.m. on 6 October 2024, he discovered that the near side front window of his vehicle was shattered. The items placed inside his vehicle including 2 backpacks, one MacBook, 2 wallets, cash of about HK$1,100, 2 identity cards, 2 credit cards and one ATM card were found stolen. The total value of the stolen properties was HK$17,200.

4.  The CCTV footages retrieved from cameras installed in the vicinity captured the Defendant walking towards Hung Hom Road from Tak Man Street at about 1 a.m. on 6 October 2024, Defendant was seen leaving Hung Hom Road about 15 minutes later.

5.  Defendant was arrested on 8 October 2024. Upon search of his residence, the Longchamp backpack and the grey colour Dior wallet stolen from WONG’s vehicle were found and seized by Police.

6.  Under caution for Charge 1, Defendant admitted that he committed Burglary at LAM’s flat by going to the rooftop of the building and smashed the window to break in. His right hand was injured by the shattered window glass and bled; his bloodstains was left at LAM’s flat. He left via the main door after stealing the items mentioned in Charge 1, he has sold the stolen properties.

7.  When cautioned for Charge 2, Defendant admitted that he had stolen from WONG’s vehicle. In the subsequent video-recorded interview, he further admitted smashing the window of WONG’s vehicle, he stole the items as particularised under Charge 2 and sold some of the stolen properties. The Longchamp backpack and the grey Dior Wallet found in his residence were stolen from WONG’s vehicle.

8.  Defendant admitted that he committed the subject 2 offences whilst he was on Court bail for another case numbered KCCC 3007/2023.

Mitigation & Sentencing Considerations

9.  The Defendant was born in India on 3 March 1987 and he will be 39 years old in less than a week’s time. He came to Hong Kong in 1997 at the age of 10 and is now a permanent resident of Hong Kong. He has attended school in Hong Kong for 3 to 4 years and dropped out later. His father had passed away and his mother in her 60’s has retired. He has 2 elder brothers. He is single and lived alone before he was arrested for the present case.

10.  In 2020, Defendant had worked as a driver for his elder brother’s business. From 2022 onwards he worked as a logistic worker and earned an income of about HK$8,000 per month.

11.  Defendant has previous convictions for 12 charges, 8 out of those 12 charges were offences of dishonesty brought under the Theft Ordinance, consisting of 1 count of robbery, 1 count of theft and 6 counts of burglary/attempted burglary. He committed the present 2 offences whilst he jumped bail of the case numbered KCCC 3007/23, which he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment. His last conviction was for Passing /Tendering Counterfeits of Currency Notes, he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on 15 October 2025.

12.  Counsel acting on behalf of the Defendant submitted that Defendant has entered guilty pleas to both charges and has made full and frank admissions, there was no confrontation or victimisation of anyone and he acted alone, there was a lack of sophistication, he invited the Court to consider the principle of totality.

13.  In HKSAR v. LAU Pang, Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2004, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the appropriate starting point for burglary to domestic premises is 3 years imprisonment.

14.  Though the burglary happened at daytime when LAM was not in the Flat and there was no confrontation with anyone when Defendant entered the Flat as trespasser, the fact that the Flat was ransacked, a window was smashed, a piece of rock and glass fragments were found on the bed and bloodstains were found at various locations inside and outside the Flat must be a dreadful and distressing scene for LAM to face when she returned home.

15.  There are 5 pairs of earrings, 2 necklaces, 3 pendants and 3 handbags of the total value of HK$116,000 stolen and not recovered, not to mention the sentimental value attached to those stolen properties can hardly be quantified. LAM also lost a number of personal documents including identity card, driving license, 2 passports, 2 credit cards and a safety training certificate, it would cause her much inconvenience, extra time and costs to get all those documents replaced.

16.  Taking into account the circumstances the Flat was burgled, that jewellery and handbags of substantial value was stolen and not recovered, that Defendant is a repeated offender of burglary, these are aggravating features calling for enhancement of sentence, I consider the proper starting point for Charge 1 should be 42 months imprisonment after enhancement, allowing one third discount for his guilty plea, sentence on Charge 1 is 28 months imprisonment.

17.  In respect of Charge 2, apart from the fact that substantial value of properties were stolen and not recovered, the loss of a digital device, MacBook, personal documents and credit cards would cause much inconvenience to the victims, the smashing of the nearside window would cause WONG extra time and costs to have his vehicle repaired, coupled with the fact that this offence was committed when Defendant was on bail for another offence of theft, which he was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, I consider the proper starting point of Charge 2 should be 18 months imprisonment in order to reflect the salient features of this case and to have deterrent effect on him, the sentence is reduced to 12 months after discount for his guilty plea.

18.  The 2 offences are distinct and separate acts of dishonesty, the offences took place at different locations, different victims were affected and different properties are involved; the 2^nd offence was committed in less than a month’s time after the first offence, both offences are committed whilst Defendant jumped court bail of a theft case, the Defendant cannot complain if the sentences for the 2 charges are to run wholly consecutive to each other.

19.  However, taking into account the principle of totality, I order 10 out of the 12 months imprisonment imposed on Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1, making a total term of 38 months imprisonment, this 38 months imprisonment is to run consecutively to all other sentences he is now serving.